Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 16â1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
.J ') ) Table 1 Treatment Weed Control with. Solan in Transplant Tomatoes - 1960 . j .. Average No. Weeds per'Square Lbs. Active Date of Per Acre Applications Foot - Aug Lambs- Pigweed· quarters Plantain Grass* 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Solan 2.0 6/21, ~~ 3.3 0.0 0.0 5.0 four applications 7/14, 2 "; ~lan , 4.0. 6/?:J., 6/28 1 e.0 0..3 . LO.O 4.6 ,', ~ I two'appl1cat16ns SOlan one application 2.0 6/21 3.3 0.3 1.6 4.0 Solan one application 4.0 6/21 2.6 0.6 0.0 2.3 Solan one application 6.0 6/21 1.3 l.b 1.3 2.3 CUltivated Check --- 6/21, 7/11 6/28 8.0 6.6 0.0 3.0 Unt:t'eated Check --- --- 17.3 96.6 - _ - -. ' - ' ..,. - 4.3 9.0 *J)arnyard.grass and yellow foxtail grass 'lQ.JB?toefLtran~p;Lfln~~~6/3/69: . .
~ Table 2 .--l Average Number and Pounds o~ Tc~atoe8 per Plot per Season For Tomatoes Receiving Foliar Applications o~ Solan - 1960 Treatment Lbs. Active Date o~ Per Acre Applications Average No. Tomatoes Average No. Lbs Per Plot Per Season Tomatoes/plot/ Season Fireball Red Jacket Fireball Red Jac ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Solan 2.0 6/21, 7/5 82.0 146.0 18.6 37.6 ~our applications 7/14~ 8/2 Solan 4.0 6/21, 6/28 75.3 152.0 16.5 34.9 two applications Solan 2.0 6/21 75.0 114.0 15.0* 25.2 one application Solan 4.0 6/21 83.0 150.0 17.6 33.0 one application Solan 6.0 6/21 81.7 142.0 16.1 37.9 one application Cultivated Check --- 6/21, 6/28 83.7 149.0 21.0 36.4 7/11 Untreated Check --- --- 25.6 14.0 2.9 2.2 LSD .01 25.6 56.0 7.2 16.2 .05 18.8 41.0 5.3 11.9 ------------------------------------------------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ *Signi~icantly lower than cultivated check. ) )
- Page 87 and 88: Table 5. Bai
- Page 89 and 90: weeding of Lima Bean. With Chemical
- Page 91 and 92: EFFECTOF HERBICIDESONQUALITYANDYIEL
- Page 93 and 94: Results Date treated: 9/6/61 Soil m
- Page 95 and 96: 95 Date planted: 915/61 Date treate
- Page 97 and 98: Table 3. Yield Data on Hanover and
- Page 99 and 100: Weeding of Carrots With 'pre-lilanU
- Page 101 and 102: 101 WEEDCONTROLSTUDIESIN SEElED ONI
- Page 103 and 104: Weather conditions at the two locat
- Page 105 and 106: In contrast to the damage noted in
- Page 107 and 108: 107 Literature Cited 1. Althaus. R.
- Page 109 and 110: Table 1. Weed control: stand of pla
- Page 111 and 112: Results and Discussion. The data, p
- Page 113 and 114: CIPO, Vegadex, and Randox Singly or
- Page 115 and 116: Table 1•. Wa. control, stand of p
- Page 117 and 118: 'Ihree experiments were conducted i
- Page 119 and 120: a- Table 2_"COIIlpartsonof' Several
- Page 121 and 122: fJ Table 3. CcBparison of Several.
- Page 123 and 124: c
- Page 125 and 126: Table 1. Seeding and Weed Counts on
- Page 127 and 128: WEEDCONTROLANDTHE IMPROVEMENT OF SE
- Page 129 and 130: Following emergence of the tomato s
- Page 131 and 132: indicates that several of the treat
- Page 133 and 134: DISCUSSIONOF RESULTS Transplant Tom
- Page 135 and 136: harvest was covered with weeds, and
- Page 137: An additional 2 years of tests on f
- Page 141 and 142: ~ Table 4 Total Yields in Number an
- Page 143 and 144: "" ~ Table 6 Bvalu~t1.on of S&l~nto
- Page 145 and 146: of weed eoneee I without inj ury 't
- Page 147 and 148: 1. Associate Research Specialist in
- Page 149 and 150: Stulllll&ry A study was lh1tlatedto
- Page 151 and 152: Table 2. The residual effects of se
- Page 153 and 154: FURTHEROBSERVATIONS ONCONTROL OF TH
- Page 155 and 156: Table 3 - Mean per cent brake contr
- Page 157 and 158: lAssociate Research Spec1alist in W
- Page 159 and 160: PRE-E~mRGENCE WEEDCONTROLTEST IN RE
- Page 161 and 162: 161 Table 2. Tolerance of Beets and
- Page 163 and 164: 163 Results generally were good wee
- Page 165 and 166: USE OF GRANULAR CHl!H[CALAPPLICATOR
- Page 167 and 168: u.s. #1 potatoes and weed control e
- Page 169 and 170: 0' ~ Table 2. Pre-emergent weed con
- Page 171 and 172: Table 3. Post-hilling weed control
- Page 173 and 174: ~/Pe.nt>:r lITn. h.7(L T1o:oTl.,:r+
- Page 175 and 176: In table 2 are presettted weed a*1'
- Page 177 and 178: Since rec1root is only one of the I
- Page 179 and 180: w.l.th 3 and 4 Ibs. ot Randox per a
- Page 181 and 182: 181 CONTROLOF ANNUALWEEDSIN pOTATOE
- Page 183 and 184: The following comments on the vario
- Page 185 and 186: 185 S\:U!U!1fryand ConclWtlon No he
- Page 187 and 188: 187 Table 2. Potato YIelds Followin
~ Table 2<br />
.--l<br />
Average Number and Pounds o~ Tc~atoe8 per Plot per Season For Tomatoes<br />
Receiving Foliar Applications o~ Solan - 1960<br />
Treatment<br />
Lbs. Active Date o~<br />
Per Acre Applications<br />
Average No. Tomatoes Average No. Lbs<br />
Per Plot Per Season Tomatoes/plot/<br />
Season<br />
Fireball Red Jacket Fireball Red Jac<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
Solan 2.0 6/21, 7/5 82.0 146.0 18.6 37.6<br />
~our applications 7/14~ 8/2<br />
Solan 4.0 6/21, 6/28 75.3 152.0 16.5 34.9<br />
two applications<br />
Solan 2.0 6/21 75.0 114.0 15.0* 25.2<br />
one application<br />
Solan 4.0 6/21 83.0 150.0 17.6 33.0<br />
one application<br />
Solan 6.0 6/21 81.7 142.0 16.1 37.9<br />
one application<br />
Cultivated Check --- 6/21, 6/28 83.7 149.0 21.0 36.4<br />
7/11<br />
Untreated Check --- --- 25.6 14.0 2.9 2.2<br />
LSD .01 25.6 56.0 7.2 16.2<br />
.05 18.8 41.0 5.3 11.9<br />
------------------------------------------------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~<br />
*Signi~icantly lower than cultivated check.<br />
) )
Change language